pte900@csc.anu.OZ.AU (Peter Elford) (05/11/88)
Has anyone got some experience with the SUNlink product that makes a SUN
3/160 look like a local controller to an IBM/MVS host and hence provides a
TCP/IP gateway to the IBM host for other TCP/IP machines on the same netwrok
as the SUN ?
I would be interested in:
1) functionality - terminal emulation, file transfer ??
2) speed
3) cost effectiveness as compared to other IBM<->TCP/IP options ?
4) pros and cons
Peter Elford,
Computer Services Centre
Australian National University,
Canberra, AUSTRALIA.
pte900@fac3.anu.ozLEONID@TAURUS.BITNET (05/14/88)
> From: Peter Elford <munnari!csc.anu.oz.au!pte900@uunet.UU.NET> > Subject: SUNLINK Users ?? > > Has anyone got some experience with the SUNlink product that makes a SUN > 3/160 look like a local controller to an IBM/MVS host and hence provides a > TCP/IP gateway to the IBM host for other TCP/IP machines on the same netwrok > as the SUN ? I have some experiencing with the SunLink SNA-3270 product. This one emulates a 3274 controller with a synch SNA connection. There is another one that connects directly to the channel - it's called SunLink Local-3270, but I have never used it. > > I would be interested in: > 1) functionality - terminal emulation, file transfer ?? The software consists of a "3274" server - a UNIX daemon which controlls the lines, and accepts up to 32 DataSream-3270 peers. These peers are implemented with RPC/XDR. To each of these peers (LUs) one can connect a terminal emulation program (te3278) that works on the Sun console on any other termcap(5) supported terminal, with user-definable keys etc. There is also a local printer emulation (pe3278) which impelemnts the screen prints and send it to the Unix printer spool. File transfer is accoumplished via the same 3270 stream the same way PCs do it with various 3270 emulators. The te3270 has the hooks necesary to start a file transfer from an emulation screen, and on the IBM you need an additional peice of software provided by IBM. (SunLink installation guide mentiones the part numbers). You may already have those if you use PCs with file transfer via 3270. As to the "relay" feature of it, there are two things to mention: 1. a te3278 terminal emulation process that runs on ANY Sun on the network can connect to ANY sna3274 daemon, thus sharing the LUs is trivial. Moreover, the various 3274's are published via YP. 2. Any terminal that connects to a Sun (WorkStation or Server) via a TELNET or Rlogin, can use the terminal emulatorbut with file transfer is not that easy. > 2) speed The pefrormance of this software has the "feels" of any other 3270 emulation on an ascii terminal. The software overhead on the Sun CPU using a 9600 synch connection is neglectable. Therefore I presume that the Local-3270 product can acheive real good speed. (It needs a pecialized hardware for the channel connection though...) > 3) cost effectiveness as compared to other IBM<->TCP/IP options ? As costs are concerned, the SunLink solution is real cheap. For one SNA connection you can get a SUN-3/60S (3 Mip server) for ~7,500$ and the rest is only software 1k$-2k$ approx. But you cannot and must not compare this to a full TCP/IP membership on an IBM, see below. > 4) pros and cons The SunLink solution (among others, e.g. Bridge w/ SNA) is worth ONLY for logging in Sun and other TTY users to an IBM, it is not a full networking solution for you IBM system. For a typical commercial organization this might be good enougth, but when you need E-Mail and direct FTP access to IBM discs from any machine on the network, I'd much prefer to have full TCP/IP on an IBM, for all it costs. If I compare the SunLink solution to ther 3270 emulators for asynch terminals, and there are quite many of those in the market, the SunLink is most appropriate if you already have SUNs and need mainly the terminal emulation function, and cheaply. > > Peter Elford, > Computer Services Centre > Australian National University, > Canberra, AUSTRALIA. > > pte900@fac3.anu.oz > Leonid Rosenboim, CS & Math, Tel-Aviv University, Israel. [ The opinions are all my own, and I am not working for Sun or any of their representatives. ]
jbeard@quintus.UUCP (Jeff Beard) (05/17/88)
In article <8805120520.AA08711@jade.berkeley.edu>, pte900@csc.anu.OZ.AU (Peter Elford) writes: > > Has anyone got some experience with the SUNlink product that makes a SUN > 3/160 look like a local controller to an IBM/MVS host and hence provides a > TCP/IP gateway to the IBM host for other TCP/IP machines on the same network > as the SUN ? > > I would be interested in: > 1) functionality - terminal emulation, file transfer ?? > 2) speed > 3) cost effectiveness as compared to other IBM<->TCP/IP options ? > 4) pros and cons > We use SUNlink for access to TSO & VM access with both interactive and ftp services. Product is stable and useful. The FTP operation requires a host session (ie: user logged on), but that's the nature of LU2 3270 emulation. It will allow multiple sessions (unique Host user_id's however) to/from the Sun workstation, and with windows, you can FTP in one and still edit from another(assuming you've got two log ons). wish list: FTP multiple files with one command. This gets to be a pain for large file set transfers in either direction. The EBCDIC/ASCII/EBCDIC translation provided fails on the characters []{}\n which limits the internal translator. The tty to 3270 mappings get a bit involved, but it's managable. We solved the FTP & translation issues by using our own GLUE.c program and doing the translation ourselves from the SUN side. The FTP was executed without translation. On the IBM Host, we UNGLUE the inbound stream based on an internal header "*** <file.ext> ***". The Unix file.ext is mapped on the HOST as (MVS)?ddname=file"FN.FT=file.ext
jbeard@quintus.UUCP (Jeff Beard) (05/17/88)
In article <8805120520.AA08711@jade.berkeley.edu>, pte900@csc.anu.OZ.AU (Peter Elford) writes: > > Has anyone got some experience with the SUNlink product that makes a SUN > 3/160 look like a local controller to an IBM/MVS host and hence provides a > TCP/IP gateway to the IBM host for other TCP/IP machines on the same network > as the SUN ? > > I would be interested in: > 1) functionality - terminal emulation, file transfer ?? > 2) speed > 3) cost effectiveness as compared to other IBM<->TCP/IP options ? > 4) pros and cons > We use SUNlink for access to TSO & VM access with both interactive and ftp services. Product is stable and useful. The FTP operation requires a host session (ie: user logged on), but that's the nature of LU2 3270 emulation. It will allow multiple sessions (unique Host user_id's however) to/from the Sun workstation, and with windows, you can FTP in one and still edit from another(assuming you've got two log ons). wish list: FTP multiple files with one command. This gets to be a pain for large file set transfers in either direction. The EBCDIC/ASCII/EBCDIC translation provided fails on the characters []{}\n which limits the internal translator. The tty to 3270 mappings get a bit involved, but it's managable. We solved the FTP & translation issues by using our own GLUE.c program and doing the translation ourselves from the SUN side. The FTP was executed without translation. On the IBM Host, we UNGLUE the inbound stream based on an internal header "*** <file.ext> ***". The Unix file.ext is mapped on the HOST as (MVS)?ddname=file"FN.FT=file.ext
hedrick@ATHOS.RUTGERS.EDU (Charles Hedrick) (05/18/88)
We had some problems with the channel-attached version of the Sunlink 3270. We were using an AS9000, which is alleged to be IBM-compatible. Apparently there are slight differences in the channels, and Sun's channel attachment uses features in a slightly unusual way. So if you are considering this product, and you aren't using a box actually made by IBM, make sure that your arrangement with Sun allows for the possibility that there might be problems. From what we could tell, the product seemed reasonable, but I'm not doing the evaluation, so I'm not the best person to speak on that. We are also evaluating a box from Mitek (?). It has similar features, and is also available either channel-attached or for synchronous lines. However it is a self-contained box, not a board that goes in your Sun.
farrell@TRINITY.RICE.EDU (Farrell Gerbode) (05/18/88)
We were using an AS9000, which is alleged to be IBM-compatible.
Apparently there are slight differences in the channels, and Sun's
channel attachment uses features in a slightly unusual way. So if
you are considering this product, and you aren't using a box actually
made by IBM, make sure that your arrangement with Sun allows for
the possibility that there might be problems.
Perhaps you should also bring this problem to NAS' attention as an
incompatibility
of their product with IBM's?
Prior to our acquisition of an AS/9000 in 1982, we had another NAS product,
namely,
an AS/6. When we were unable to successfully install an IBM Series/1 channel
attach on the AS/6's channels, we pointed out the incompatibility of that
machine's
channels with IBM's due to the Series/1 channel attach's violation of IBM's OEMI
Channel Specification during the inital selection sequence. (Hmmm..perhaps
the IBM Series/1 was not really IBM compatible either! :-) NAS and Hitachi,
the manufacturer of both the AS/6 and AS/9000, devised and tested a hardware
modification to SLOW DOWN the initial selection sequence to that of an IBM 3033
and Hitachi flew three hardware people in from Tokyo to install it on our
machine.
We found that NAS took very seriously our claim of their incompatibility with
IBM even in what was, at the time, a rather unique situation. (Of course, the
Series/1 became MUCH more popular within a couple of years.) The AS/9000 worked
with the Series/1 without modification.
Farrell Gerbode
Rice University